VORUGANTI NARAYANA RAO Vs. BODLA RAMMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 01.06.2011, in I.A. No. 177 of 2011 in O.S. No. 52 of 2001 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.

(2.) The Petitioner is the Plaintiff in the above mentioned suit filed for recovery of suit amount from the Respondents on the basis of the promissory note. On 11.02.2011, the Petitioner, who was examined as P.W-1, was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the Respondents-Defendants. After closure of the evidence on the Plaintiffs side, Defendant No. 3 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on 22.03.2011. On 08.04.2011, the Respondents filed I.A. No. 177 of 2011 for receiving seven pronotes into evidence. This application was resisted by the Petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit. It is averred by the Petitioner in the said counter-affidavit that the Respondents have created and brought into existence the pronotes and that, they failed to show any valid and sufficient reasons for not filing them earlier. The Court below, however, while accepting the plea of the Petitioner that the Respondents failed to file the pronotes at the earlier stage of the case, allowed the application by holding that the Respondents have mentioned adequate reasons for not filing them earlier.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri v. Raghu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that even though under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a discretion is vested in the Court to permit the Defendant to produce any document beyond the time stipulated other than at the time of filing the written statement, such discretion can be exercised only if the Defendant comes out with proper explanation for not filing them along with the written statement. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ravi Satish v. Edala Durga Prasad, 2009 3 ALT 236.